Primm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jimmie Earl Stephens, No. 2:22-cv-00330-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER 13 v. 14 Primm, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In a previous order, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 18 | recommendations and denied plaintiff Jimmie Stephens’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 19 | under the so-called “three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 11. Plaintiff moved to 20 | reconsider, claiming prison medical staff had not treated his health conditions, which might 21 | qualify him for an exception to § 1915(g) based on “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 22 | ECF No. 12. The court directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 23 | (CDCR) to file a response “indicating what treatment if any plaintiff is receiving, and what 24 | treatment is scheduled prospectively.” ECF No. 14.!

' The court amends its previous order on its own motion to clarify that…